“A local housing authority’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by a homeless applicant was not discharged by providing two self-contained flats with no shared communal living areas, one for occupation by the applicant and her sister and the other for occupation by her father, because such accommodation was not available for occupation by the applicant together with any other persons who normally resided with her as members of her family within the meaning of section 176 of the 1996 Act.”

“Where a lease provided for quiet enjoyment that meant an ability to use the premises in an ordinary lawful way. Consequently where a disabled tenant requested a service from his landlord such as repair or redecoration the court had to assess whether the provision of that service would enable him to live as would any other typical tenant in the premises.”

Please note that we have been experiencing some difficulties linking to WLR Daily case summaries. If you find that a link does not take you to the case you were expecting, you can also find it by using the ‘case search‘ function on the ICLR website.

“An applicant for housing under the homelessness provisions who, on an review of a decision to refuse accommodation, had a right to make oral representations where there had been a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision, could insist on a face-to-face hearing with the reviewer at which he or his representative could make representations.”

“The government is facing a legal challenge to its controversial plans to cap housing benefit payments on the grounds that large areas of the south-east will become off limits to the poor, with lone parents and ethnic minorities ‘disproportionately affected’.”

“In all cases where a local authority was seeking possession of a property which constituted a persons home, including persons who had been granted introductory tenancies pursuant to Part V of the Housing Act 1996 and persons who had been granted a licence of property under the homelessness regime in Part VII of the 1996 Act, the court being asked to make the order for possession had to have the power, pursuant to article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to consider whether the order would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

“Where a court had made an order for possession against a tenant in his absence, on an application to set aside that order under CPR r 3.1 the court should take all the circumstances into account under r 3.9, where the tenant could show for the purposes of r 39.3(5) that he had acted promptly when he found out about the possession order, had a good reason for not attending the trial and had a reasonable prospect of success on the application, giving precedence to the requirements of r 39.3(5).”